Posted
by
samzenpus
on Friday May 11, 2012 @07:06AM
from the browse-and-play dept.

TheGift73 writes in with this link about IE 9 coming to an Xbox 360 near you. "Microsoft is currently testing a modified version of Internet Explorer 9 on its Xbox 360 console, according to our sources. The Xbox 360 currently includes Bing voice search, but it's limited to media results. Microsoft's new Internet Explorer browser for Xbox will expand on this functionality to open up a full browser for the console. We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."

I suspect it won't do Flash or ActiveX, so it'll probably be reasonably safe. No bridge to outside world is completely safe of course, but if you limit the active content to JavaScript it probably won't be too bad. IE isn't nearly as full of holes as it used to be (not much worse than any other browser these days, really) and a lot of what is there for holes are in ActiveX. Add to that the fact that the XBox won't run unsigned code, it doesn't run Windows so any exploit would have to be completely retool

Yes; from the NSS labs report: "Recent studies show that users are four times more likely to be tricked into downloading malware than be compromised by an exploit." and " Note: This study does not evaluate browser security related to vulnerabilities in plug -ins or the browsers themselves.".

Seems quite a stretch to claim IE9 is the "safest web browser" based on a report that specifically does not test browser or plug-in vulnerabilities, even if PEBKAC vulnerabilities are more prevalent, although maybe the

None. The Xbox 360 browser won't be supporting plugins, of that you can be certain. And with a cursory glance at the exploits list, almost all are either socially engineered ("your computer has a virus, click here to scan!") which won't work on a 360, or related to plugins such as Flash, Java or Adobe Reader - also a no-go on the 360.

Wrong, applications can still change security settings and get you exploited very easily. In many cases, this is built in to software installers. It still has the absolute worse track record for security unless the only thing you base your statement on is how many security patches are released.

This flaw in architecture is not yet fixed, and probably never will be. In order to be compete they keep the browser loaded directly in the kernel.

show me the source code or I call bullshit. Same with Opera, fuck the claims about security, how many remote exploits are patched every few weeks by Microshit? Like I would trust proprietary blob shit!

Duh. So if they don't release patches, it was more secure? Also: nobody is going to show you source code. People don't even care that you have an opinion that you post anonymously.

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."
Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."
Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc.

Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms."
Does that include YouTube for example? As far as I remember you have to be a XBox Live Gold Member to use the YouTube application...

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc.
Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

For me the key point is why do I have to pay for something that is free? I mean, I can watch youtube without restrictions on my Windows PC but I have to pay extra to do the same on the 360.
And I don't have a gold account because I'm not into online gaming, but I'd like to watch youtube in my living room tv.

Apple hardware holds it's value far better than anything else so even if you want to moan about it being pricey, you'll likely get more than the difference back assuming you're not one of those people that think some $300 laptop is the equivalent of a macbook.

I usually keep them myself because I make a stupid assumption my outdated hardware will come in handy at some point.

But I do recall trying to buy G4s from ebay and thinking fuck it because it's not worth what they're asking. My old style ipod I did sell though for I believe just over 50% of what I paid for it. Maybe because it was black they were stupid enough to think it was an ipod touch. I don't really care what the reasoning was and there are a lot of people that have traded up ipads because they can

I'm not trying to be rude, but do people actually buy an Xbox and not have a Gold membership? It equates to something like $5 per month for access to demos, weekly arcade games, an indie game market, promo videos, media streaming, a stable staging environment for multiplayer gaming across games, etc.
Not to burst your bubble, but you'll probably need a Gold membership to use the IE browser anyways. Hopefully they launch Skype soon. That's my only real complaint.

Well I'm guessing that people that have more than one console are MUCH less likely to pay for Gold membership. All the things you mentioned you can do for free on the wii or ps3. The only part that would be worth the gold would be multiplayer in a game you couldn't get on another platform. Which does happen, just not often.

Unless you're talking about Homebrew Channel on Wii, Wii and PlayStation 3 don't really have an indie game market comparable to Xbox Live Indie Games or the iOS App Store that copied XBLIG. Nintendo still insists [warioworld.com] on WiiWare developers having a dedicated office and "relevant game industry experience" (a previous commercial game on another platform), and indie developers operating out of home offices can't necessarily afford those.

Can someone please explain to me why Sony doesn't do more to encourage indie games? As best I can tell, because Sony makes most of their profit from game sales, they don't want to risk allowing a new market to compete with the money-makers, which is logical.

My feeling, though, is that opening up new markets and capabilties can only increase the demand for the console, which in turn should at least balance out a theoretical loss in game sales: Nobody buys a console specifically for indie games, but for many

Sony does allow indie games in the sense of much smaller companies. They don't allow some 14 year old to publish a turd on the PS3 though. Sure MS is more open but they've also had numerous complaints about making it difficult to even find the indie games with each of their redesigns and they'll no doubt become more strict on future systems because XBL's indie section is full of rubbish.

You mean the collection of indie games that are largely shit and that MS try to pretend aren't there? The Wii does indeed get indie games like World of Goo and the only reason it didn't get Super Meat boy was due to size constraints. Whether it's a good thing or not Nintendo does try to keep the level of quality up. Obviously it doesn't always succeed but XBL's indie section is a shit heap.

That's a tough one because anything that has a rock bottom entry requirement is going to filled with crap. I believe I still have an issue of Edge magazine that discusses how rare it is to actually make money from XBL indie games. Android isn't much better (I'd guess it's worse actually) and even the iphone is a tough one.

In my mind if I were going to do it I'd do it on the PC. I could target 3 operating systems if I really wanted to. Two of those operating system don't have a saturated gaming market unl

For starters, throw out your tetris/lumines/concentration clone stuff... There are too many of those already.

Then go to work for an established small dev house, because there's no way you'll be able to make a commercial quality game for the PS3, even a mini...on your own. Sure, maybe you can make a NES style sprite, but are you a REAL artist. Can you make good catchy music, are you good at documentation that doesn't sound written by a robot?

Ah, but how many people were involved in Angry Birds, now available on "every fucking platform under the sun"? Or Fruit Ninja, now available on "even a few platforms that Angry Birds isn't". That's probably the two best examples of formerly unknowns coming out with a product so successful that they don't need to apply to the console vendors, the console vendors approach them. Hell, Microsoft likely paid big money to Halfbrick for Fruit Ninja Kinect to be made.

Ah, but neither Rovio or Halfbrick are unknowns, they were already established successful niche companies before they had their big hits.

Rovio had a goodly sized team for Angry birds, if you look at the credits. And Rovio has been in business since 2003. They started out doing J2ME games. received their first funding from an "angel" in 2005. They didn't just come out of nowhere.

Halfbrick has been around since 2001, mostly GBA development. They seemed to be the sort of house hired out by other companies

Done. I haven't touched a line of code in a falling block game since 2009. Or by "throw out" did you mean "remove past work from the web site"?

Then go to work for an established small dev house

The sticking point here is having to leave one's home state. I'm still trying to derive from first principles either A. why that ought to be necessary in an ideal world or B. what underlying non-ideal chain of events causes that requirement.

I'm still trying to derive from first principles either A. why that ought to be necessary in an ideal world or B. what underlying non-ideal chain of events causes that requirement.

You're overthinking this and doing so is a waste of your time.

1. This isn't an ideal world.

2. If one wants to be a chef of haute cousine, one would probalby move to wear such restaurants are plentiful. If one wants to be a game developer one might want to move to where the game developers are: Seattle, Silicon Valley, some of the larger cities, etc. It's that simple.

Nintendo still insists on WiiWare developers having a dedicated office and "relevant game industry experience" (a previous commercial game on another platform), and indie developers operating out of home offices can't necessarily afford those.

Then go to work for an established developer, pay your dues, build up a nest egg/get funding/take out loans and then start up your OWN company, with an office and employees. if you REALLY want to be a professional game developer quit complaining and actually DO something.

What do you mean by that? A move's a move, for the most part. You're an adult, figure it out. If you don't understand that...well then your disability is probably TOO disabling for you to ever be a professional developer.

And you should probably have a job offer before moving, doesn't that make sense?

For gosh sakes, you're a nerdy person with Asperger's with an internet connection, figure it out already. Use you internet connection to make contact with professional dev houses, fill out applications, set up

Where's the signup page to become a PS3 minis developer? This press release [eventnewscenter.com] mentions "SCEA Third Party Relations", but all I get when I visit the URL in the press release [scea.com] is "YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO ACCESS THIS SITE".

But they probably won't talk to you. Most corporate types would see you as a "basement dwelling aspie fanboy wannabe developer"...which is why I suggest working for an established company to earn your bona fides, make contacts, etc..THEN going independent if yo

But the thing that Xbox Live has over Wii or PS3, or even the PC for that matter, is the built-in voice communication, separate and compatible with the games and apps, so you can join up in a Party, then fire up Netflix together or go into a game together and have the chat continue to work through the loading screens and not interfere with the application sound. Playing with people you know, even if you only know them from Xbox Live, is so much better.
It works so much better that I know some people who w

Since when is a gold account required for buying Live Arcade and indie games? Almost all of demos are available for silver members as well, though some have/had timed exclusivity to gold members (which is BS in my opinion)

I don't mind paying for something that requires servers that MS has to maintain, like multiplayer gaming.

However, paying to do things like watch Netflix, YouTube, or use a web browser is too far, because I'm not actually using Microsoft's servers to do any of that. Why should I have to pay monthly for it?

I know it's not much money, it's more about principle than anything else. I hardly even use my Xbox 360 anymore because I got tired of all the nickel and diming and crippled games. Anyone who has ever compa

Gaming on the PC is far superior; unfortunately publishers using excessive DRM and requiring $600 video cards are frustrating even some of the strongest holdouts over to consoles, so it's become a niche market.

$600 video card? I think I spend $250 and I have yet to run into a game that I couldn't run on the highest graphics settings. You are forgetting that consoles are holding back game graphics. Today, most game companies build with consoles in mind. The graphics card in consoles are not upgradable. Even if a console had the best available graphics cards at the time of creation, consoles tend to go years without a new console coming out. That said, it doesn't really bother me. Graphics have gotten to the point

Why should I pay for content that is free everywhere else? Also regarding the Xbox specific content and online play. I don't play games online games enough on one system to warrant paying a monthly fee. Why should I pay for something when I'm not using it? It's not like it's going towards ensuring I get bug free games or any sort of added benefit. In fact MS doesn't like publishers to give away free content which is why, if you were to play a Valve game on a console, the PS3 is the best choice.

Bing? I have Google as my home page on my TV (and no xbox, it's a real PC). Why would anyone deliberately use Bing? The only times I've been to Bing is by accident (like forgetting to change BT's or a new browser's default search).

Except CronoCloud [slashdot.org] and several [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] users [slashdot.org] keep telling me that statistically nobody [slashdot.org] wants to do that. Therefore, publishers tend not to cater to the HTPC market.

I picked up an Acer Revo a while back because it had a fiber optic audio connection to the amp, and sat nice and quiet next to the TV.

Fast forward a year, and now I'm surfing the web reclined on the couch.

I could go 6 feet that way and sit at a more powerful computer on a desk, or sit up and use a more powerful laptop, but... I'm sitting at the lowest powered machine in the house whining when it chokes on something. Sucks to be lazy...

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess Microsoft is trying to realize th

...are tools. More and more content is being delivered via the web, so more and more people are wondering how to hook their PC up to their TV. As this is only becoming more true (Netflix and Hulu both are getting worse and worse, while new sources of content continue to crop up) the trend ought to continue for the foreseeable future. It's simply not believable that the various studios will cooperate on a single delivery system and thus make it feasible to access "all" the content that's out there via a sing

That's because most people just plug in their old laptop instead of buying an HTPC. [...] It's just a VGA cable and a sound cable.

Except I'm told that a lot of people either A. have a desktop and no laptop, B. have an SDTV and no HDTV, C. have an HDTV with only HDMI input and no VGA and an old laptop with only VGA output and no HDMI, or D. don't know what that blue D-shaped port on the back of the TV is useful for. I've tried to address D on my page [pineight.com], but how can the others be addressed?

"We are told that the browser will let Xbox users surf all parts of the web straight from their living rooms." Does that include YouTube for example?

I'm already watching YouTube in my living room on my TV, but I don't have an X-Box. I have an old PC running kubuntu that's using the TV as a monitor, which is pretty much all an X-Box is except the X-Box is using a different OS.

The PC-TV combo is great for old DOS games under DosBox, too. Now if I could get the old Windows games to play I'd be set.

They appeared to have a shit fit over the idea of non-gold members getting BBC iplayer even though they couldn't charge for it which is why it took at least a year after everyone else had it for the xbox to get it.

I wonder if this will allow Hulu "Web Only" content. I cant understand how getting Hulu over the internet is not automatically classified as 'Web Only' but there are shows that will not stream to the XBOX360 and **MUST** be watched in a browser.

Mostly stuff that Hulu just links to the network's website. I ran into this when I changed to FIOS and forgot to setup "Criminal Minds" to record. It's not on On Demand, and Hulu lists it on their site, but only links to cbs.com, so I couldn't use the XBox. We just watched it on my wife's laptop, but I definitely would have preferred the TV.

"Web only" is rather correct. "Internet" is generally the TCP/IP stack, "Web" is just one of the many applications that use the internet.They could have used a more obvious name like "Webbrowser only" though.

And Netflix, and Xfinity App, etc etc etc... All of these would then become instantly available through the use of an internet browser that can surf all parts of the web. Unless they are going to require an Xbox Live Gold membership to be able to use the browser....

That's my guess. I refuse to pay M$ money every month to use something I've already paid for (or received as a gift). Nearly all Internet functions, with the exception of updates, require a Gold Membership to use. We use our Wii for things like Netflix at no extra costs and the 360 for Kinnect games.

Yes, it does, and the PS3 one supports watching videos on Youtube as well. Although, overall it's a bit of a pain to use, certainly not an ideal way to browse. And if there was a way to get it to do 1080 for Youtube I never managed to find it.

All this trying to make consoles general purpose has been rather useless. The only thing the consoles do well is games and in the PS3/Xbox case they are also good enough for watching movies. Anything else and you are better off using a PC.

Does the PS3 browser support HTML 5? It's been forever since I tired to browse YouTube on my PS3, but I thought at one point most of the videos didn't work because they required a newer version of Flash (which, from what I remember, hasn't been updated in ages).

The web browser on the PS3 is garbage, looks terrible on my TV screen, and the text hard to read. It has very limited features, and works poorly with sites like Facebook. Not sure how well it does with multimedia sites, since I've only dabbled with it a little bit. Maybe they've made improvements since the last time I used it, but if I want to look something up quickly, I'd rather use my iPhone because the Safari mobile browser is 10x better than the PS3 browser.

SCEJ has a hard-on for Netfront, because it's made a fellow Japanese company, they ignore how crappy Netfront is. The PS2's Japan only BBN browser for the PS2 was also netfront, as is the PSP's browser.

When I had LInux on my PS3, I actually preferred to use Firefox under LInux to browse on TV.

The PS3 had an awful port of old Netfront (dumb phone browser engine) to the PS3. Some months ago they upgraded it to a more recent version of Netfront that is based on Webkit. It is a modern engine but still very slow on the PS3

Yes, it did, but it was pretty bad. I tried it a few times for various things, I was severely underwhelmed. There's very, very few things that I would want to browse on my TV over my PC, and those few things didn't even work well (eg, streaming video). It's also a pain typing with a controller any of the 3 controllers and an on-screen keyboard.

I always assumed the 360 did as well. Really MS? It took you this long to put a browser on it?

I had the same thought when the current gen of consoles first came out. But at this point, with the prevalence of browsers on smartphones and tablets, I don't thi

Really? I can't really get that jacked up about surfing the web on my XBox. However, given that it's tied into my home stereo, why not ditch the silly Windows Media Player set up required now (tethered to a PC in the home) and run the entire app right on the XBox? the xbox can already see my music library; I would love to control it, maybe add some tracks, from WMP.

OR (and this wouldn't be bad), how about iTunes on the XBox? That would be kinda cool

Er, you know that when you're browsing your WMP library over DLNA (NOT Media Center) you can copy tracks from the music library to the Xbox 360's hard drive and play them from there without the PC right? It already does what you want.